hard · Private Equity advanced-lbo

A sponsor buys a target for $1,000m EV at 5.0x entry EBITDA of $200m, funded with $600m debt and $400m equity. At exit in Year 5, EBITDA has grown to $260m and net debt has been paid down to $300m. The sponsor's LPs are quoting a 2.0x MOIC but the deal team insists the multiple-expansion contribution to value creation is exactly zero.

Both can be true only if the exit multiple equals which value, and what does that imply about the dominant value driver?

Exit multiple is 5.0x (flat), so equity value is $1,300m − $300m = $1,000m for a 2.5x MOIC; the team is right that deleveraging alone, not EBITDA growth or expansion, explains this step-up in equity value across the full five-year hold.
Exit multiple is 5.0x (flat), giving exit equity of $1,300 − $300 = $1,000m, but after subtracting fund fees, carried interest, and transaction costs the LPs net only 2.0x, meaning EBITDA growth rather than deleveraging is claimed to be the dominant driver.
Exit multiple is 5.0x (flat) since expansion is zero; equity value is $260m × 5.0 − $300m = $1,000m, a 2.5x gross MOIC, so the LP's quoted 2.0x figure must simply reflect a plain calculation error with no basis whatsoever in the deal's underlying cash flows.
Exit multiple is 5.0x (flat), making exit equity $1,300 − $300 = $1,000m; with multiple expansion zero by construction, EBITDA growth plus deleveraging together produce the 2.5x — but the LPs' 2.0x can't reconcile without fees or a dividend leakage.

Both can be true only if the exit multiple equals which value, and what does that imply about the dominant value driver?

More Private Equity advanced-lbo practice

KomFi Academy — Stop doomscrolling. Get KomFi.

What's inside

Topics